If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Same in reverse: why should the resources of other companies that you don't serve, serve you. Thus we end up in a situation where they keep theirs, we keep ours. It's all about Intellectual Property, no matter whether you're dealing with megacorporations or FSF.

They shouldn't and if I don't want to serve them I choose the GPL or proprietary, but I want to have my code useful by others and only GPL projects (of course it's clear theory, because I don't make good code :P and some projects can be just not interesting and useless).

@Deanjo

Hey, if you want to keep something to yourself then by all means do so. It is you code after all. This can be achieved though GPL or Proprietary licenses (again same shit different pile). If you want to benefit all however you use PD.

Oh yes, that's a point. I should mention I want to other GPL projects eventually benefit from my code not proprietary or others using different licenses. I've got your point now If I want everyone have benefit I would use PD as you mentioned.

Comment

Well, most of the performance gains (and drops) of the benchmarks in the article are due to the difference of gcc. gcc in 10.6 creates 64-bit executables by default, but in 10.5 not. So I think the article is almost nonsense in terms of the comparison between 10.6 and 10.5. At least it should be revised to use the same (i386 or x86-64) executables.

Comment

I've got your point now If I want everyone have benefit I would use PD as you mentioned.

That's the trick of the case. PD benefits everyone at the begining, from large companies to individuals and simple users. But since everyone can get the code, it's a matter of time to be extended in such a way that the original code to become obsolete since what matters will be the new technology that will be built on the original code. And since PD permits to a large corporation to close the later code, patent it and struggle education and science like this and sell it to the end user (who ofcourse can afford the money) with tons of restrictions then do really everyone benefits?
The idea of PD which leads to real benefits it's very utopian. I don't doubt that if we were elves it would work greatly, but we are humans and UNFORTUNATELY in the real world it produces much much more harm than good. Here if you don't protect your freedom you can easily lose it.

Comment

While our focus at Phoronix is on testing hardware under Linux, we remain friendly and interested in other BSD and UNIX operating systems too, including Mac OS X . With the launch of Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" we have been particularly interested in it considering the technological advancements that have been made in this update thanks to their large focus on improving the performance of Mac OS X. With that said, we have spent all week working on a grand Mac OS X benchmarking showdown by comparing the performance of the retail build of Mac OS X 10.6.0 to the earlier Mac OS X 10.5.8 through a number of different quantitative tests. We firmly believe that as of right now these are the most detailed desktop performance numbers available concerning Snow Leopard, but we already have more figures on the way. We have performance numbers from not just one Mac computer, but two different setups. Here's to the first 60+ tests we ran!

Just a suggestion for the future: put all the benchmarks on one graph, using a metric that's useful across benchmarks (such as performance increase in percent). Here's an example using some data from this article:

The benchmarks here are sorted by the NVidia performance numbers, which makes it really easy to scan the results and see that three tests had significant regressions, about a third had no little to no change in perfomance, and the rest saw moderate to dramatic performance increases. It's also obvious that except for a few benchmarks (bork, threaded write, threaded read), the NVidia machine doesn't gain significantly more than the Intel one and it actually sees performance regressions in a similar number of cases where there are none for the Intel machine (stream: copy, stream: scale, gzip).

In your follow-up article, you compare OSX with two versions of Ubuntu. Similar suggestions apply; I would suggest using Mac OS X 10.6 as the baseline for the performance deltas in that case, since the point is to compare OSX against Ubuntu.

Frankly, I don't think I could bear to actually read one of these articles if it wasn't for the infinite scroll greasemonkey script[1] that de-paginates them automatically for me. Increasing the amount of information per page (or having less page breaks) would really help this.

Comment

That's the trick of the case. PD benefits everyone at the begining, from large companies to individuals and simple users. But since everyone can get the code, it's a matter of time to be extended in such a way that the original code to become obsolete since what matters will be the new technology that will be built on the original code. And since PD permits to a large corporation to close the later code, patent it and struggle education and science like this and sell it to the end user (who ofcourse can afford the money) with tons of restrictions then do really everyone benefits?
The idea of PD which leads to real benefits it's very utopian. I don't doubt that if we were elves it would work greatly, but we are humans and UNFORTUNATELY in the real world it produces much much more harm than good. Here if you don't protect your freedom you can easily lose it.

Yes, my post about PD was very simplified and not accurate.

Comment

I don't doubt that if we were elves it would work greatly, but we are humans and UNFORTUNATELY in the real world it produces much much more harm than good. Here if you don't protect your freedom you can easily lose it.

Yeah, humans suck. The best government and economical models are doomed for failure because of our inadequacy.

Comment

That's the trick of the case. PD benefits everyone at the begining, from large companies to individuals and simple users. But since everyone can get the code, it's a matter of time to be extended in such a way that the original code to become obsolete since what matters will be the new technology that will be built on the original code. And since PD permits to a large corporation to close the later code, patent it and struggle education and science like this and sell it to the end user (who ofcourse can afford the money) with tons of restrictions then do really everyone benefits?
The idea of PD which leads to real benefits it's very utopian. I don't doubt that if we were elves it would work greatly, but we are humans and UNFORTUNATELY in the real world it produces much much more harm than good. Here if you don't protect your freedom you can easily lose it.

First of all you cannot patent PD code. Again if a corporation utilizes the code they still cannot take the original code out of PD. Once PD always PD. It's just the same if a project utilizing the GPL changes licenses afterwards. The code that was licensed as GPL shall remain GPL and everything after the license change is new new license. There have been instances of this in the past. So what do people do they take they build off of the original GPL code.

In the real world PD has proven very successful. Take a look again at sqlite. It started off as a hobby, has always been PD and if the corporations wish to have a license (for the lawyers peace of mind) on it they may have one for a $1000. The author of sqlite never intended for it to be his main source of income but it has evolved into a thriving project without lack of funding and gives the author a very comfortable source of income. It is his full time job. So in the real world PD does work, and is not a worst case scenario which you present. Adobe, Apple, MS, Google, Sun and many more purchase these licenses and provide the developer with a very comfortable living and allows him to continue full time development on it.